Man dines and dashes after $27.90 lunch buffet
In a Facebook post uploaded on Monday (July 7), the restaurant, located at Bugis Junction, said that the man "forgot the bill intentionally by walking out via the back door exit".
"Someone enjoyed our (all-you-can-eat) $25.90 lunch buffet a little too much," the business wrote.
Images of the man's order were attached, showing that he had ordered 13 items between 3.51pm and 4.14pm. He left the store at around 4.55pm.
The man ordered eight servings of pork and beef, sides, and green tea. PHOTOS: HEY YAKINIKU/FACEBOOK
A netizen called the man a "cheapskate", while another joked that "he went behind to wash (the) dishes".
The restaurant shared a post the following day to clarify that the photos were not uploaded to shame the man.
Hey! Yakiniku marketing manager Ms Lin, 47, told Shin Min Daily News that the man specifically requested to sit near the back door so that he could go out to smoke.
"He entered the store at 3.49pm and chose the 90-minute lunch buffet. He slipped out through the back door while the staff were busy," she revealed.
"The staff thought he was going to the bathroom, but they waited for more than an hour before they noticed something was wrong."
After reviewing the surveillance footage, the employees noticed that the man left the store after suspiciously making sure that no one was paying attention.
Ms Lin said that the incident was shared online to remind the public that such acts should not be condoned.
"We will not call the police, but we also hope that he will not do it again."
She added: "Running a restaurant is not easy - high rent, manpower shortages, and high expenses. I hope everyone will put themselves in our shoes. If he really has difficulties, he can tell us directly, and we are willing to treat him to a meal."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
International Business Times
5 hours ago
- International Business Times
Car Bursts into Flames on Bukit Timah Road; SMRT Bus Driver Attempts to Extinguish Fire
A car caught fire in Bukit Timah Road on Sunday, August 17, while a bus driver was seen trying to put the flames out. The Singapore Civil Defense Force (SCDF) responded to inquiries by stating that it was informed about the fire at approximately 5:00 pm. A water jet and hose reel were used to put out the fire, which was located in the engine compartment of the vehicle. The cause of the fire is being investigated, and no one was hurt. A SMRT bus driver was seen using a fire extinguisher to try to extinguish the flames consuming the bonnet of a white car in a video shared on the Facebook group Singapore Incidents. In the meantime, a different video was posted on the Facebook page of Singapore Roads that showed multiple firefighters using their tools to put out the fire. In 2025, at least a dozen car fires have been reported. Vehicle fires increased from 215 in 2023 to 220 in 2024, according to the SCDF's annual fire statistics report, which was made public on February 13. Engine electrical problems and ignition sources like overheating were identified as the main causes of these fires.
CNA
12 hours ago
- CNA
COLUMN - Can Zuckerberg duck deposition in Meta privacy class action?
August 18 :Mark Zuckerberg has better things to do than sit for a deposition. Or so lawyers for Meta Platforms suggest in a pending petition to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, objecting to the billionaire CEO being forced to give testimony in a proposed privacy class action. The company invokes a controversial principle known as the apex doctrine to claim Zuckerberg should be spared the hot seat, arguing that he has no "unique" knowledge of the case, and plaintiffs' lawyers could get the same information from lower-level Meta employees. Plaintiffs want to question the CEO about allegations that Meta obtained private health information from millions of Facebook users without their knowledge or consent via its Pixel tracking tool. The claims echo those in a class action by users of fertility tracking app Flo Health, where a San Francisco jury on August 1 found Meta violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Damages are yet to be determined, but as I previously noted, the total could be huge. In June, U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco agreed with U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi and gave the plaintiffs a green light to depose Zuckerberg. However, the judge limited the session to a maximum of three hours and narrowed the scope of allowable questions to center on a consent decree Meta entered into with the Federal Trade Commission involving the Flo app and Zuckerberg's role as a final decisionmaker on privacy-related matters. A Meta spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. The company in court papers has denied wrongdoing in both cases. Plaintiffs' lawyers from Gibbs Mura declined to comment for this column. Defense counsel from Latham & Watkins and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in July asked the 9th Circuit for a writ of mandamus to nix the deposition, calling it 'a critically important issue of first impression' for the San Francisco-based court. Mandamus is a 'drastic and extraordinary' request, plaintiffs' lawyers say, arguing that the trial court judge in allowing the deposition committed no clear error to justify such relief. But defense counsel say there's a larger issue at stake than a one-off deposition. Multi-billion-dollar companies like Meta face scores of lawsuits, and their leaders have "uniquely crucial and demanding job duties, as well as limited time," they wrote. That makes being called to testify especially burdensome. District courts within the sprawling 9th Circuit are 'deeply divided' on exactly when and how to properly apply the apex doctrine, Meta lawyers said in asking for appellate guidance. Indeed, spats over deposing CEOs have arisen regularly in court within the 9th Circuit and beyond in cases involving companies including Microsoft, Tesla, Uber, and Alphabet. In some instances, execs were let off the hook, while others were compelled to sit for depositions. Such demands can be more about harassment than a legitimate need for information, the Meta lawyers claim, arguing that deposition testimony is only justified if the executive has unique, first-hand knowledge that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Here, they assert, the bid to depose Zuckerberg is 'a ploy to increase the burdens of this litigation and obtain perceived leverage." Plaintiffs' lawyers counter that state and federal procedural rules already allow subpoenaed witnesses to contest demands for their testimony. There should be 'no special dispensation from civil discovery for corporate executives simply because of their status as titans of industry,' wrote lawyers from Gibbs Mura; Simmons Hanly Conroy; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Kiesel Law; and Terrell Marshall Law Group. The underlying litigation began in 2022, when plaintiffs alleged Meta violated a federal wiretap law and a California privacy law, as well as its own contractual promises governing user privacy on Facebook, my Reuters colleague Jonathan Stempel reported. According to the complaint, Meta Pixel - an internet analytics tool that Meta makes available to website developers - provided sensitive information about users' health to Meta when they logged into patient portals where it had been installed, enabling Meta to make money from targeted advertising. Meta in court papers has responded that it should not be held liable if certain healthcare providers allegedly misused Pixel, 'a publicly available tool that Meta did not implement or configure on the providers' websites.' Plaintiffs' lawyers, in justifying their request to question Zuckerberg, argue that from the start he's been implicated in the case. 'He had personal knowledge of Meta's intent to receive this information,' they allege, 'and he knew about and played a key role in Meta's collection of sensitive health data.' The appeals court has not indicated when it will rule on the petition, but Meta lawyers notified the district court that Zuckerberg's deposition may proceed this month in Palo Alto if the 9th Circuit denies its mandamus petition by August 21.
Straits Times
12 hours ago
- Straits Times
1,600 Ministop stores in Japan suspend deli sales over fake expiry dates
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Sales of onigiri and bento lunch boxes were halted from Aug 9, and other deli dishes from Aug 18. TOKYO – The operator of the Japanese convenience store chain Ministop said on Aug 18 it has suspended the sale of deli items at some 1,600 stores as expiry dates of certain foods prepared by its kitchens have been faked. While no health damage has been reported so far, sales of onigiri and bento lunch boxes were halted from Aug 9, and other deli dishes from Aug 18. Ministop found that some store workers extended expiry dates by not placing labels on items for one to two hours after they were prepared at in-house kitchens, while others removed expiry stickers and relabelled them with false dates. The misconduct has been discovered at 23 stores in Tokyo, Saitama, Aichi, Kyoto, Osaka, Hyogo and Fukuoka prefectures. KYODO NEWS .
